The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,995 chars

Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 129 (1978)�
(“States and cities may enact land-use restrictions or controls
to enhance the quality of life by preserving the character and
desirable aesthetic features of a city.”); Budnick v. Town of
Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A] city’s
interest in achieving its zoning goals has long been
recognized as a legitimate governmental interest.”);
Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227, 1236 (9th
Cir. 1994) (recognizing as “legitimate objectives”
“preserving the agricultural heritage of the City, providing
for a range of housing types and densities, preserving the
‘small town’ character of the City, and limiting development
within the City to levels consistent with available
resources”); cf. Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S.
50, 54–55, 71 n.34 (1976) (plurality opinion) (upholding a
1,000-foot restriction on adult businesses when motivated by
the businesses’ secondary effects on surrounding
communities). In fact, high-density housing of any kind may
dilute the desired residential character of a neighborhood.
The jury could have concluded that the City’s challenged
zoning regulations were intended to address these problems
and did not indicate the City has discriminatory animus
towards the disabled. See Gamble,104 F.3d at 306 (holding
that concern for the residential character of the neighborhood
is a legitimate and nondiscriminatory goal). Whether the
residents of high-density group-living facilities are disabled
or not does not inherently dictate whether such facilities will
contribute to higher traffic, lack of sufficient parking, or
increased noise—those problems arise from high-density
housing in and of itself, regardless of the residents. And the
City’s focus on group homes is not inherently suggestive of
discriminatory animus given their rapid proliferation, which
the City attributed to federal and state legislation that had
44        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text